I'm now genuinely curious what the psychological attachment to the Trinity is. GW2 does not have the typical Holy Trinity and throughout many of the threads here there seems to be some form of attachment, some "go back home" mentality, where trekking off-the-beaten-path has caused severe backlash. Now I know this is a collective group of 20 or so people so it's not a real representation of the world at large but that doesn't make the reasoning any less valid so why are you so attached to Holy Trinity and why do you loathe the exit from such? Feel free to discuss player choice and why roles are important as well and what "having a role" does for you as a player.

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

Also I think you are talking about the Holy Trinity and not the trinity - the holy trinity is the roles (tank, healer, damage dealer) while the trinity is just dealing damage, taking damage and recovering health.

You will also notice that the players complaining about the lack of the holy trinity are mostly tank and healer players, that enjoyed perks and power under the holy trinity.

When choosing a class one is choosing a role - "I'm going to be an engineer", "I'm going to be a warrior" but for those that want the holy trinity that isn't enough, they need an extra role or in fact the roles are Tank, Healer, DPS and classes just become a flavor instead of the main choice.

I have no attachment to the trinity, but I do think that roles are extremely important for complex gameplay to exist and that the trinity is the easiest way to create roles. I do prefer quad-role setups though.

Also I think you are talking about the Holy Trinity and not the trinity - the holy trinity is the roles (tank, healer, damage dealer) while the trinity is just dealing damage, taking damage and recovering health.

I don't like that thought. It's too constricting in what options could be available, which mechanics could exist. But upvote cause of Socrates quote.

EDIT:

To expand on why roles are important: it allows for specialists on certain mechanics. For example, you could have a role that specializes in dealing melee damage. I think most people are familiar with that archetype, and know that it can exist in three subtypes - usually highly durable (tankish), without other characteristics ("melee DPS", usually then with higher damage than the previous), or more stealth/movement oriented (typically with low durability and specializing in burst damage).

But let us lift our thoughts here. Making melee DPS into a tank or a stealthy melee spiker is one thing, but there are things that doesn't fit in the trinity at all. If instead of talking about what we see at first sight in the game, we talk about what things are available to do, things get interesting. Our melee DPS character is now not only focused on simply dealing damage (and surviving a beating). Now he is there to restrict the enemies' action space (what the enemies can do) since, simply put, if they are beating up him, they are not beating up someone else.Of course this just extends to normal tank-n-spank gameplay which is fairly low complexity. But assume now instead a concept of a viable action space, where enemies realize that hitting the guy with the most armor just isn't working and will eventually get them killed, so instead they try to retarget to reach the people behind him. The obvious way to expand mechanics to increase complexity of gameplay would be to insert counters to retargeting. These can be of two kinds, hard counters such as a Taunt mechanic or a knockdown (actually preventing them from reaching the other target), and viability counters such as snares (allowing them to attempt to retarget, but decreasing their efficiency so much that it would be a better choice to stay and hit the tank after all).Of course simply having an action space also allow us to think of many other ways of adding complexity and depth to gameplay. These include, but are not limited to, adding capabilities to the action space (making one action automatically trigger another, beneficial action), reducing the action space (such as disabling or interrupting enemy actios), decreasing the viability of certain options so as to make them no longer part of the viable action space even though the actions themselves are possible (e.g. a spell that hurts you if you move; moving too much would be unviable since it'd make you lose more than you gain by moving), or increasing such viabilities (such as healing someone that is under attack so that staying in the fight instead of running away is a viable course of action). Of course the most interesting parts of this is where you actually try to predict how modifications to the action space will affect the opponents' actions and how they, in turn, will try to modify your action space (and what you can do about it).

Now the more you add complexity and depth to the game, the more players have to keep in mind and use at the same time. You could easily make a game where every player have 300 skills, all available at the same time, all of them doing different things or at least in different ways. It would appear to be very complex (though it would not actually be that) but also completely unmanageable, and would just be a pain to play. Cutting down on the number of mechanics available to each player can be done by either cutting down on the total number of mechanics, which results in low-complexity gameplay, or cutting down on the number of mechanics that each player have access to, which results in role-oriented gameplay.

Another reason is of course that having a role allows the player to appear to excel at something. The healer that keeps everyone alive can, after the dungeon raid, feel proud of that he indeed kept everyone alive, at least mostly. The tank can feel good about having kept the baddies away from the rest of the team, the assassin can feel good about having dealt 10k damage in a single hit, the dedicated interrupter can feel good about having completely shut down the end boss making the fight much easier, the mage can feel good about whatever mages feel good about, etc. Note that this apparent expertise does not stem from the player character's capabilities, but rather from that the other group members lack those capabilities.

The problem with this when it comes to the trinity is of course casuals. Some people understand damage very well but fails to understand any part of gameplay not directly related to damage (as in, it's possible that they understand healing). Since these people are in a majority, especially in the MMO community, the DPS role of the so-called holy trinity is often easily populated while tanks and to some degree healers are usually more difficult to find, (and naturally, since they have more groups to choose from, more picky about what they perceive as bad play).

I have updated the OP to reflect the word "Holy" combined with "Trinity"!

Also, you think that frame of reference holds that much power? I mean yes it is so that they do not get the same perks that they used to but they also gain perks that they never had. Tanks were tanks, they stood there, took damage, maybe dealt some too, pulled enemies, and the aggro was on them. The game was predictable, it was a simple puzzle, and just a matter of observation and then adaptation to the plan.

You may be right that it does deal with frame of reference simply because most of the older will not recognize the direction of various games; it's just somewhat confusing to me how players could crave such shallow gameplay. All the decisions in combat relating to the Holy Trinity are very fatalistic and predetermined; if you did not bring "the right party" you would die, period. It was less about player skill and ability and more about preparedness and foresight. It's a very basic level of tactical gaming.

Now I'm specifically referring to PvE because PvP is unpredictable; real people make crazy counter-intuitive choices that cannot be presumed to follow a beaten path and may be effective even outside of the norm or meta.

Trinity is a boiled down version of the complex class diversity you got from the progenitors of MMORPGs, which is the P&P. For instance, a wizard was squishy, had very little combat advantage in early levels. However, in video games, Magic Missile > Mage Hand.

One of the more annoying factors of the old school P&P games was the necessity for a healer, which is why the concept of healing has spread to multiple classes to provide players and groups with diversity. But the simple fact of the matter was a rather heavy interdependency between party members.

The boiling down was largely furthered by a necessity to have a diverse class representation without requiring any one particular to overcome encounters. Yes, theoretically a character with Arcane knowledge might help the party, but that is why you have the option to have a bard or a sorcerer instead of a wizard.

When the game was being sold, the main idea was not the removal of the trinity, but having a vast level of diversification between the professions. However, it makes very little sense to have an Elementalist or a Mesmer acting as a damage soaker over a more martial plate-wearing Profession... so they re-framed it as Support and Control.

Control was largely what a Tank did anyway, and mitigation has contextually changed from simply having high armor and health to having active abilities that prevent damage. Support was another PR friendly term that implied you were not only contributing to the overall damage of the group, but any damage loss incurred from 'supporting' was made up for in the boons and uptime you were adding to the other players.

The problem comes that after everything shook out, you didn't have these concepts. You had Defiant, which basically removed any measure of control due to a poor implementation of control systems... A boss isn't that challenging if he can be constantly knocked down, dazed or stunned, but putting whatever build points you have to Control is wasted when most of your skills are spent overcoming Defiant.

The same for support... if everyone can heal themselves and avoid their own damage, and if your own support skills are so pathetic that they can't outweigh the damage mitigation caused by a perfect dodge, you're better off going full damage.

Getting a little OT, but keep in mind that a lot of the "good" skills don't scale from any statistical value. You cannot "improve" upon the effectiveness of a Reflect skill or a Dodge skill outside of execution. This largely contributes to the useless value of non-Zerker stats. Damage is a combination of up-time on the boss and statistical value. Most mitigation is not. Its reliant largely on execution of static abilities. Even the non-damage skills that scale aren't worth investing into as a primary role outside of Damage because contributing to another player's success outside of damage doesn't come near to equating a player's personal responsibility to mitigate their own damage.

There's more about the overall flaws of the system as a whole, but that's getting even more OT.

1

It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

Roles in games is the way to force ppl to cooperate. You forcing ppl to play with each other because as role X you can't beat content without role Z and Y. You also can't change your role if for some reason on fly because of some strange reason.

PPL should play with other ppl and should cooperate because they want to, because it's more fun, not because games forces us to play with each other and even tell us what everyone should do.

Roles are just lazy.

Edit
It also gives this false sense of being important in group scenario. I'm doing my job, my role, i'm important thingy
And it gives quick way to judge which fault it is and who sucks. You can quickly judge which roles does not do its job and call those ppl noobs.

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

I don't always agree with Improvavel, but I do, it is certainly about the metaphilosophy of recurring traits of human nature.

That, and I'm a healer. I'll go full CLERICS even when it is not feasible to do so, because screw the rules the social pier pressure over my role as a guardian, I got money the moral highground of my own creeds and beliefs to back me up!

Roles in games is the way to force ppl to cooperate. You forcing ppl to play with each other because as role X you can't beat content without role Z and Y. You also can't change your role if for some reason on fly because of some strange reason.

PPL should play with other ppl and should cooperate because they want to, because it's more fun, not because games forces us to play with each other and even tell us what everyone should do.

Probably still wouldn't change the GW2 meme of how hard it is to have multiple sets of gear, alts, etc, but you're not necessarily tied down to a role in other games unless you were exceptionally lazy providing the proper system to support role diversification. Or the API to support UI development for managing what it takes to play multiple roles.

But theoretically, so is putting in a button that allows you to mitigate all damage and handing it to every class to decrease the need for role interdependency and balancing every class to be equally good at every role you give it.

Edited by MazingerZ, 19 March 2014 - 04:40 PM.

0

It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

I might be seen as a trinity advocate in these and official forums, but i am not.
I just don't like the current singularity. Anet didn't really removed the need for tank and healer roles, they just made the job of tank and healer very ineffective,
so people use objects: walls and pillars as tanks, and use damage avoidance rotation (dodging, blocks and reflects) instead of healing.

to all the people who say "you can play as you want... leave my zerker alone "
i will say this is not true, in the current state of the game, people who choose a 'non DPS' role like, CC or support or control are severely hindering themselves and their group. because only thing that matters is DPS, and the rest of the stats are wasted.
cleric geared or sentinel geared player is simply carried by his DPS friends, he contribute almost nothing to the team.

the arah2 with all healer group that managed to finish the dungeon eventually, is not a proof that cleric gear is somewhat viable, it is only proof that decent players can finish arah2 naked . even if it takes them hour and a half.

I will provide an example of what i think is sort of a good solution, there is a very good game DDO,
they have very soft penta-nity: tank, healer, CC, dps, buffer.

you don't have to run a dungeon with everything, but it helps,
you can have a party of 6 fighters, or 6 clerics or 6 wizards or 6 monks etc,
you can have tank or two tanks or zero tanks but you bring CC instead, dedicated CC like bard or DPS CC like wizard or sorcerer.
if you are fleshy, you probably will want to have healer in your party, or bring lots of potions if you are rich.
but if you run necromancer/construct party you don't bring cleric for heals they don't affect you, you bring cleric for his blade barrier, implosion or destruction.
you can bring thief to find disable the traps, you can bring tank to eat through it, and the rest of the party will try to jump over

it makes the runs different and available almost with every group setup .

I don't always agree with Improvavel, but I do, it is certainly about the metaphilosophy of recurring traits of human nature.

That, and I'm a healer. I'll go full CLERICS even when it is not feasible to do so, because screw the rules the social pier pressure over my role as a guardian, I got money the moral highground of my own creeds and beliefs to back me up!

In my opinion Anet didn't even have to remove the healer.

GW1 worked fine with healers and no tanks (although Shadow Form tanking was in the game, but that is another story) due to a different aggro system and it is that "mobs attack this guy all the time" that I dislike.

One thing I simply don't understand is how playing a Paladin instead of a Warrior or a Mage isn't sufficient role differentiation.

Some people keep saying that without the Holy Trinity there is no role diversity.

Are they really saying that playing a Paladin is the same as playing a Warrior and what distinguishes them is if they are a DPS or a tank or a healer (in the case of the paladin)?Are they saying a Mage is the same as a Warlock since they are caster DPS classes?

So why is there a Paladin and a Warrior (or a Monk or a Death Knight) or a Mage and a Warlock, if they are all the same role?

I feel way different playing a Mesmer than I feel playing an Elementalist or an Engineer despite the fact they are all damage dealer classes. Even a warrior and guardian feel different.

​I guess some people prefer to emphasize what they are doing over how they are doing it.

With all this there is no denying GW2 has problems with build diversity due to CC not working against the bosses that matter, condition damage being weak, mobs not following the same rules concerning boons and conditions, etc, but that has nothing to do with the absence of tank and healer role.

GW1 worked fine with healers and no tanks (although Shadow Form tanking was in the game, but that is another story) due to a different aggro system and it is that "mobs attack this guy all the time" that I dislike.

Tanking is just a form of the Control role that makes the mob's damage outside of special abilities matter over constant CC to prevent action. Its entirely possible to make tanking require a rather high skill ceiling if maintaining aggro and active mitigation. TERA had a similar system for their tanks where you had to generate the resource that allowed you to actively mitigate, so you weren't just soaking passively.

I've generally considered the people who stand against the trinity or role-based gameplay as disliking being reliant on a role that most players don't play. Its a strong independent streak of self-reliance, which begs the question why they're into the MMO genre. I am not much of a sports fan, but I'd wonder what their opinions would be if we abolished any roles in sports. Fsck, we don't need a goalie, anyone can just run up and block the ball and catch it with his hands.

One thing I simply don't understand is how playing a Paladin instead of a Warrior or a Mage isn't sufficient role differentiation.

Some people keep saying that without the Holy Trinity there is no role diversity.

Are they really saying that playing a Paladin is the same as playing a Warrior and what distinguishes them is if they are a DPS or a tank or a healer (in the case of the paladin)?Are they saying a Mage is the same as a Warlock since they are caster DPS classes?

So why is there a Paladin and a Warrior (or a Monk or a Death Knight) or a Mage and a Warlock, if they are all the same role?

I feel way different playing a Mesmer than I feel playing an Elementalist or an Engineer despite the fact they are all damage dealer classes. Even a warrior and guardian feel different.

​I guess some people prefer to emphasize what they are doing over how they are doing it.

The mechanisms are vastly different. You rely on a different skill set and a difference in game play. Order of operations. Roles dictate what you do in a fight. Classes dictate how you do it. The mitigation skills and resources are different between the classes. Some people might prefer to tank. I kinda do, but I enjoy melee characters by and large so I have a Ret Paladin, a Brewmaster Monk, Rogue and I used to tank as a Frost DK in Wrath.

Each was different, with its own considerations to the classes strengths and weaknesses. DKs were very anti-magic, but their physical mitigation is not the best when I last played. Warriors rely more on block, which still lets 30% of damage through, but they're vulnerable to magic... Druids and Monks rely on Dodge, but Monks also 'stagger' damage.

Edited by MazingerZ, 19 March 2014 - 05:13 PM.

1

It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

Probably still wouldn't change the GW2 meme of how hard it is to have multiple sets of gear, alts, etc, but you're not necessarily tied down to a role in other games unless you were exceptionally lazy providing the proper system to support role diversification. Or the API to support UI development for managing what it takes to play multiple roles.

But theoretically, so is putting in a button that allows you to mitigate all damage and handing it to every class to decrease the need for role interdependency and balancing every class to be equally good at every role you give it.

Dual talents spec for wow as an example of what? Out of combat role change?

Gameplay there is simple. Your tank died= healer failed = everybody can just say gg and start all over. Dps can just run in the middle and start to tank the boss.

I don't want roles in gw2. I buy gw2 because it does NOT have any roles. Simple as that, maybe next time read before buying something?

I just laugh everytime when I see someone is trying to make in guild wars 2 some role. I want to play as CC role. I want to be a healer role. I want to be a support role.No, there aren't any roles. Any.You have goalsurvivekillAll you can do is to put more focus on defense, more focus on offense, more focus on offensive support etc.So character fits your style. Ppl can talk what they want about meta build but still after that I need to like something and it should fit my style or not.That's why I don't use signet of fury on my warrior, i will use endure pain and I don't care about how many damage I loose.The same with thief. I still prefer s/p instead of d/d because I just don't like dagger. I don't care about how much more damage it deals, I just don't like it.

About alts.Aside from ascended gear, if someone after 2 years has problem with gear for alts...it's l2p issue, really.

Tanking is just a form of the Control role that makes the mob's damage outside of special abilities matter over constant CC to prevent action. Its entirely possible to make tanking require a rather high skill ceiling if maintaining aggro and active mitigation. TERA had a similar system for their tanks where you had to generate the resource that allowed you to actively mitigate, so you weren't just soaking passively.

I've generally considered the people who stand against the trinity or role-based gameplay as disliking being reliant on a role that most players don't play. Its a strong independent streak of self-reliance, which begs the question why they're into the MMO genre. I am not much of a sports fan, but I'd wonder what their opinions would be if we abolished any roles in sports. Fsck, we don't need a goalie, anyone can just run up and block the ball and catch it with his hands.

FirstWhy you want to rely on other ppl when you playing a game? Why my fun should be connected with other ppl doing their job properly?

I'm playing the game or work in freaking corporation?

About sport.As you look at modern football (or soccer if you are from other part of uniwerse) you would see difference.30 years ago they were roles. Attacking player just focused on this, the same defensive player.Now we have whole team which either attacks or defend. Side defensive players works like offensive players, defensive players jump in for free kicks etc.So it changed. And it even looks better, more dynamical, more agile.

Another reason is of course that having a role allows the player to appear to excel at something. The healer that keeps everyone alive can, after the dungeon raid, feel proud of that he indeed kept everyone alive, at least mostly. The tank can feel good about having kept the baddies away from the rest of the team, the assassin can feel good about having dealt 10k damage in a single hit, the dedicated interrupter can feel good about having completely shut down the end boss making the fight much easier, the mage can feel good about whatever mages feel good about, etc. Note that this apparent expertise does not stem from the player character's capabilities, but rather from that the other group members lack those capabilities.

You can still feel proud of not being downed, as a group having cleared that dungeon without wiping, doing it in 5 minutes instead of 10 you usually take, always hitting your bubble on the boss projectile pull, hitting that rez skill at the right time, etc.

It depends more about the mob design than the fact you are the only one that can really heal, you are the only one that can really take damage from the baddies or really do 10K damage in a single hit

You can still feel proud of not being downed, as a group having cleared that dungeon without wiping, doing it in 5 minutes instead of 10 you usually take, always hitting your bubble on the boss projectile pull, hitting that rez skill at the right time, etc.

It depends more about the mob design than the fact you are the only one that can really heal, you are the only one that can really take damage from the baddies or really do 10K damage in a single hit

But being proud of not being downed is a personal thing, being proud over making sure no one else got downed causes you to feel important to the entire team. And that is a very fundamental feeling that humans are hardwired to love: the feeling of being useful to their group. Now sure everyone is useful if you did it in 5 minutes instead of 10 (since obviously everyone did more damage than usual), or were they...? After all if you were just 5 guys DPSing then it could very well have been so that the other 4 did a great job and one person didn't. No one would know. But more unique roles makes each person's contribution so much more visible.

Tanking is just a form of the Control role that makes the mob's damage outside of special abilities matter over constant CC to prevent action. Its entirely possible to make tanking require a rather high skill ceiling if maintaining aggro and active mitigation. TERA had a similar system for their tanks where you had to generate the resource that allowed you to actively mitigate, so you weren't just soaking passively.

I've generally considered the people who stand against the trinity or role-based gameplay as disliking being reliant on a role that most players don't play. Its a strong independent streak of self-reliance, which begs the question why they're into the MMO genre. I am not much of a sports fan, but I'd wonder what their opinions would be if we abolished any roles in sports. Fsck, we don't need a goalie, anyone can just run up and block the ball and catch it with his hands.

I much prefer the GW1 tanking - you tank because you get in the face of the mob and they have to go around you instead of an arbitrary resource.

Well my european football team just had 4 goals scored in the last 2 games by 2 different Center backs that have a defending role.

All football players (european version) learn certain skills, like passing, controlling the ball, etc. There are some that are more position specific but there numerous stories of goal keepers scoring goals (for example being good free kick takers or the mexican Jorge Campos that either played and a Goal Keeper or forward center) and it isn't unheard of if a goal keeper is sent off and there is no substitution available for a field player to replace it.

Basket ball players all can dribble, pass, shoot regardless of their position.

Dual talents spec for wow as an example of what? Out of combat role change?

Gameplay there is simple. Your tank died= healer failed = everybody can just say gg and start all over. Dps can just run in the middle and start to tank the boss.

I don't want roles in gw2. I buy gw2 because it does NOT have any roles. Simple as that, maybe next time read before buying something?...

Why you want to rely on other ppl when you playing a game? Why my fun should be connected with other ppl doing their job properly?

I'm playing the game or work in freaking corporation?

I could ask you a better question... why do you want to play a social game and that doesn't rely on teamwork? It sounds like you're interested in the wrong genre or want the MMO genre to move to this level of banality more suitable anti-social tendencies.

To an extent, I do not want to belong to a 'freaking corporation.' Its why I do not engage in high-end raiding any longer. It became more of a commitment than I was willing to give.

But cooperative game-play in which the roles are more complex than outputting the highest damage numbers and player interdependency is part of the challenge of playing an MMO and has been since before WoW.

Well my european football team just had 4 goals scored in the last 2 games by 2 different Center backs that have a defending role.

All football players (european version) learn certain skills, like passing, controlling the ball, etc. There are some that are more position specific but there numerous stories of goal keepers scoring goals (for example being good free kick takers or the mexican Jorge Campos that either played and a Goal Keeper or forward center) and it isn't unheard of if a goal keeper is sent off and there is no substitution available for a field player to replace it.

This is vastly different from my implication... the rules allow for a score, just like in most games, healers and tanks are still capable of scoring a kill... Its just from their role in the game and primary responsibilities, its less likely for the opportunity to present itself.

As to the whole 'collision' tank thing, the reason we have those arbitrary systems is because they're a little more reliably calculated than collision detection and overall physics. Heck, Tribes: Ascend was all about physics and they still had issues where hitting an object at an angle would suddenly catapult you vertically and at speeds far faster than when you struck. Having a server (to prevent cheating) manage all the collision detection in GW2 would be more than they could handle, and a decade ago was even worse.

Edited by MazingerZ, 19 March 2014 - 05:27 PM.

1

It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

But being proud of not being downed is a personal thing, being proud over making sure no one else got downed causes you to feel important to the entire team. And that is a very fundamental feeling that humans are hardwired to love: the feeling of being useful to their group. Now sure everyone is useful if you did it in 5 minutes instead of 10 (since obviously everyone did more damage than usual), or were they...? After all if you were just 5 guys DPSing then it could very well have been so that the other 4 did a great job and one person didn't. No one would know. But more unique roles makes each person's contribution so much more visible.

But what if your group worked with 5 tanks?Or with 5 healers?

Or 3-4 of each and there was this big DPS guy that all the damage?

I keep getting the impression this is about being a unique person in the group.

This is vastly different from my implication... the rules allow for a score, just like in most games, healers and tanks are still capable of scoring a kill... Its just from their role in the game and primary responsibilities, its less likely for the opportunity to present itself.

As to the whole 'collision' tank thing, the reason we have those arbitrary systems is because they're a little more reliably calculated than collision detection and overall physics. Heck, Tribes: Ascend was all about physics and they still had issues where hitting an object at an angle would suddenly catapult you vertically and at speeds far faster than when you struck. Having a server (to prevent cheating) manage all the collision detection in GW2 would be more than they could handle, and a decade ago was even worse.

The tank as we know with the aggro and whatnot, exists because it is hard to implement physics on a videogame over the internet, especially in a massive persistent world.

Still, for instanced dungeons it could be used - GW1 did so.

In most holy trinity games, in the places where you require the healer-tank-dps setup, healer damage is trivial, tanking and dps healing is trivial.

Sports act much more like GW2 system but the opposition in sports is generally better than GW2 mobs.

I keep getting the impression this is about being a unique person in the group.

Having a unique competence makes the case but so does having a near-unique one. Of course the more unique roles there are the more each contribution becomes visible, so that if you do have "5 tanks, 5 healers and one DPS guy", the DPS guy's input would be obvious while it might not be crystal clear how much each of the 5 tanks added to the group. I find it best to set the number of roles to roughly fit (or slightly exceed) the normal party size, as well as allowing all roles to be fulfilled in more than one way.

I find it confusing that you seem to question what I wrote about feeling unique even though it is rather obvious that people appreciate roles for this reason, while you seem to happily accept the complexity-of-gameplay argument I made, despite it being rather counterintuitive at least to me. No one read that part?

One thing I simply don't understand is how playing a Paladin instead of a Warrior or a Mage isn't sufficient role differentiation.

Some people keep saying that without the Holy Trinity there is no role diversity.

Are they really saying that playing a Paladin is the same as playing a Warrior and what distinguishes them is if they are a DPS or a tank or a healer (in the case of the paladin)?Are they saying a Mage is the same as a Warlock since they are caster DPS classes?

So why is there a Paladin and a Warrior (or a Monk or a Death Knight) or a Mage and a Warlock, if they are all the same role?

I feel way different playing a Mesmer than I feel playing an Elementalist or an Engineer despite the fact they are all damage dealer classes. Even a warrior and guardian feel different.

​I guess some people prefer to emphasize what they are doing over how they are doing it.

With all this there is no denying GW2 has problems with build diversity due to CC not working against the bosses that matter, condition damage being weak, mobs not following the same rules concerning boons and conditions, etc, but that has nothing to do with the absence of tank and healer role.

This is an interesting question and as far as I see it: yes, playing a paladin (if he is DPS focused) is not really different from playing a warrior. And yes, caster DPS is the same as caster DPS. There is different artwork and perhaps different side effects. Perhaps one can cast single-target fireballs at a rate of one per three seconds and then after a while he must rest for half a minute. Meanwhile the other caster conjures up AoE that gives lower damage but she has no downtime. Those two roles are very nearly the same role. Perhaps, in some cases, the AoE can be used as being an effect on an area instead of it being just damage that happens to hit more than one target, for example if the AoE also roots enemies in place and thus also serves as CC. In that case the AoE caster would have a different role. But if it's just a question of ranged damage with different artwork and maybe different order of clicking, then no, it's the same role.

I keep getting the impression this is about being a unique person in the group.

The feeling being talked about doesn't come from being unique. It comes from being able to "make plays" and actually see that it was you that had that specific impact. Something you can't really do in the current system but you can in a role system (not just the Holy Trinity). Everything could be going to the dogs and you personally could make a play by responding perfectly in your role and save the group. Anyone can do it but these plays only happen if individual players are responsible for different things and their impact on the team is immediately recognizable. These play making moments in PvE are rare enough as it is since they really only happen when things go really bad.

If you can't see that you did it, then that rush is lost. You don't get a "Yea! I rock!" when your party beats a boss 8 seconds faster than the last time you did. It isn't about being a special snowflake and it isn't about making other people notice you. Though other people noticing you was a bonus in of itself. I have lists of people I have played with that are exceptionally good at what they do in various games so I can invite them when I need another person. I don't have one for GW2.

This feeling is why most healers are healers. The issue being that the presence of a strong healer is detrimental to deep gameplay (not the tank). There is a post by Ensign somewhere about just that.

Edited by Feathermoore, 19 March 2014 - 05:50 PM.

3

Little Mabel won't be able to be here it's our worst fear. She's busy working on her garden that she's growing up in space.

Why hello there forumite. Would you like me to review some moderation you did not agree with? Never fear! PM is here! Want to be a better poster? Check on this link! And this one!

This is exactly why no roles lead to a flat and boring game. There is nothing to do except survive and kill stuff.

The fact that GW2 didn't get it right doesn't make this true. GW2 is boring because it failed one of the major ways games have to engage players not because of the lack of roles. Otherwise ESO is in for a really, really rough ride considering their entire spiel rests on this open-world element and being the first truly sandbox-ish MMO.

Why is it "false"? Surely, if you weren't doing your job and the group was capable of failing because of that, then actually you are important.

"Dime a Dozen". If the group fails because of your inaction you are so easily replaced it's sad. There are thousands of priests waiting outside the door so rather than you, the player, having done a good job in your role it's just you, the disposable employee, who go the job done. Importance comes with variance. Variance is rare in mathematical games.

Why is it "false"? Surely, if you weren't doing your job and the group was capable of failing because of that, then actually you are important.

"Dime a Dozen". If the group fails because of your inaction you are so easily replaced it's sad. There are thousands of priests waiting outside the door so rather than you, the player, having done a good job in your role it's just you, the disposable employee, who go the job done. Importance comes with variance. Variance is rare in mathematical games.

This talk of trinity and roles is step backwards for GW2. I get it that the combat seems one-sided with heavy focus on DPSing. I think ArenaNet was on to something with cross-profession-combos (CPCs) in terms of roles. Frankly they missed the chance to really give the professions some individuality and value by not creating unique CPCs using utility skills (as oppose to weapon skills). Other thing they missed the boat on is giving mobs vulnerabilities to select CPCs. So imagine A Ranger's Muddy Terrain and a Guardian's cast Sword of Justice at enemy's position (where Muddy Terrain has been placed) a unique type of damage occurs, something like 25 seconds of bleeding. Some veteran mobs and bosses could be vulnerable to this particular type of bleed.

By making the CPCs more significant in combat, we start to pay more attention to our allies in battlefield. Right now it's a spam-particle fest and you're only looking at Boss's healthbar to track the condition damage. As for more support, I think shield skills could get a significant defensive buff, and Guardian's skills that deflect damage like Wall of Reflection's duration should be at least 30 seconds long as opposed to just 10 seconds. Of course there should be a drawback like limit of how many Guardians can cast WoR in same area to prevent players from ganging up defensively.

These are just some of the ideas they could've done instead of the idea of reverting back to archaic trinity.

The issue being that the presence of a strong healer is detrimental to deep gameplay (not the tank). There is a post by Ensign somewhere about just that.

Do you have a link to that post? I think it would be a worthwhile think to link in this thread.Also I want to read it

The fact that GW2 didn't get it right doesn't make this true. GW2 is boring because it failed one of the major ways games have to engage players not because of the lack of roles. Otherwise ESO is in for a really, really rough ride considering their entire spiel rests on this open-world element and being the first truly sandbox-ish MMO.

ESO is in for a rough ride for many reasons. But you are right, it is possible to make a fun game without roles. For example most FPS games lack roles or have rather weak roles.

"Dime a Dozen". If the group fails because of your inaction you are so easily replaced it's sad. There are thousands of priests waiting outside the door so rather than you, the player, having done a good job in your role it's just you, the disposable employee, who go the job done. Importance comes with variance. Variance is rare in mathematical games.

From all the complaining about being reliant on someone, it sure doesn't sound like priests are a dime a dozen. It sounds like people don't want to be beholden to uneven ratios of Role A to Role B to Role C, where Role A is the predominant role that you want to play (either because you can't play the other two or do not want to), but have to wait for the availability of the less populous roles of B & C. They dislike the deference afforded to B & C because of their 'unicorn' status and promote games that move away from such things.

If anything I've noticed about the GW2 trend, its this weird little game where on one hand, people would rather not have the concept of gear-scores or combat logs, but at the same time admit demand that you rock a certain stat set for grouping or allows you the anonymity of being faceless in a crowd. A game with no existing middle ground between the two extremes of faceless zerger or "Solo Arah P2 Full Zerker' Youtubers. Even the particle effects in the engine promote the latter.

Edited by MazingerZ, 19 March 2014 - 06:18 PM.

2

It's okay to enjoy crap if you're willing to admit it's crap.Every patch is like ArenaNet walking out onto the stage of the International Don't Kitten Up Championship, and then proceeding to shiv itself in the stomach 30 times while screaming "IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!"

The problem with CPCs is that they trigger speficially, not generally. Which means that every time you want to use a CPC you (or actually not just you but also someone else) need to do the exact same thing. To base gameplay around it you'd need to do the exact same thing over and over. Not to bring GW1 into this, but it separated existing effects from what produced these effects, which created "emergent CPCs" so to speak. For example rangers using Winnowing or Winter to affect other party members' damage output (bad example? no, think about it), warriors intentionally killing their own pets to become stronger, rangers using their pets to allow necromancers a supply of minions, mesmers using their opponents' buffs to damage them, etc etc.

ANet obviously wanted to keep these synergies but made the mistake of scripting them instead of allowing them to emerge organically.